 Sorry, your comment is hard to read as English may not be your first language. As for my being insulting or attacking you, far from it, it’s my opinion of you and as such I have a right to express it. How you interpret my comments is up to you and as you are not judge and jury your objections have no meaning.
WMD in Iraq. I’ve done a little research in the archives and gone through your ranting’s. Let’s dissect the crap you posted. Below is the ONE article you brought forth as evidence of media coverage, and at best it’s sketchy. You also mention wikileaks, seriously? You’re going to use wiki leaks as a defense, which has had questionable info (as stated by your own government) in an effort to convince us of something even POTUS said didn’t exist? From http://nypost.com/2010/10/25/us-did-find-iraq-wmd:
US did find Iraq WMD
By Don Kaplan
October 25, 2010 | 4:00am
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.
Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.
Let’s go through this little piece of trash propaganda.
“The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.” So where is the imagery? You may want to reread that again, “that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion” small amounts, no statement of what is meant by small, was it 2 ounces, was it truck loads, they don’t define small meaning it could have been less that a teaspoon full. Since when has Wired Magazine been a source for definitive details on military actions?
The third line “The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War. “ It’s pretty clear here that they found remnants of a chemical arsenal. REMNANTS, in other words nothing that could be pulled out and used to kill off all those nasty civilians that didn’t like Saddam. Recall that he was accused of using this stuff against his own people, evidence for which has never seen the light of day but apparently if the US gov says it’s so we should all just believe them.
Here’s a painfully obvious and purposeful omission on your part “most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.” THEY WERE DESTROYED FOLLOWING THE GULF WAR. In other words what little they might have found was destroyed after papa Bush’s invasion of a sovereign country. This can only mean that when Dubbya decided to invade again there was nothing Saddam could have used as a WMD.
This is a real doozy “In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.” American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard”. THOUGH being the operative word, then it states “The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.” And nowhere does it tell us what the labs in these secure sites found in the containers the troops THOUGHT contained liquid sulfur mustard. So I ask again, where’s the evidence???
The last line, well this must be what should convince us is real proof that Saddam had WMD “Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.” So the troops kicked in the door of some poor family and found they were cooking up nasty things on the stove. Since I understand you have no ability to think outside of what DC tells you is the truth I can see where you might have missed the significance of this, the general population of Iraq who the troops were supposed to be liberating but instead were killing decided to fight back with any means they could MUSTARD (not a typo) up. They were prohibited from defending themselves with any guns they might have recovered as having guns would automatically make them targets of the US military and much more likely to be killed or worse, have a drone drop a bomb on their house killing the whole family.
So this is the extent of your PROOF that the US was justified to invade Iraq? Where’s like postings from news outlets such as, oh say the Washington Post, MSNBC, LA Times, you know the big newspapers who are concern about their reputations, ugh, typing that almost make me vomit , as if these outlets have any morals and care about truth but even they were mute on the subject at hand.
The fact remains that if any such items were found Bush would have had every talking head in the media reporting on it 24/7, I mean every main stream media outlet would have shown blown up images and spent copious amounts of white space to demonstrate that the invasion of a sovereign country was justified... But they didn't because there was no evidence. Even Dubbya (Bush mini-me) stated that they never found WMD.
Now if you go and redefine what WMD represents then yes of course Saddam had them, this also means that any army or para military group has WMD. Since it appears your willing to accept a new definition of WMD, such as RPG's since they kill more than one, two, or three people at a time there are those like you who would label them WMD's.
And even is they would have found Mustard gas in Iraq? Who the hell do you think would have sold him such things? The US! Yes while Saddam played along with the DC morons they would sell him almost any kind of armament, and they did. Don't forget (unless it fits into your dream world bubble) that Saddam was a poster child for the DC mob, right up until he decided he didn't want to play DC's dirty little games any longer.
Now let’s dissect this little gem from you:
“(P.S. We found WMD in Iraq--I was there [see Wiki-leaks if you wish]. We just didn't find Saddam's VX, which is likely part of Syria's arsenal now. Also, instead of pretending that it was a big 'lie', do your research and learn that every single major intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam had VX stockpiles, and the Democrats to include Hillary and Bill Clinton also were completely convinced by the intel of the time, and supportive of the actions taken in 2003. To now, in hindsight, claim otherwise and that it was 'lie' concocted by Bush and Cheney IS the true lie in all of this, but an effort that--with the full support of the media--has become the false narrative of the day.)”
You state “I was there”. So what so were thousands of military personnel, I happen to knows some. Does that make you or them experts on this topic, no. So now the question must be asked, what do you mean by you were there? Were you part of the team that found the mythical WMD’s? If so you violated your oath by telling us what you did as you have provided no proof that you are authorized to disseminate such information. If by you were there you mean you were stationed in Iraq your story means nothing more than, well any other DC shill who still wants to cover up a massive screw up by the US and international intelligence (what a misuse of the word) community. In fact you even go so far as to use circular reasoning to cover your lack in real intel. You state “do your research and learn that every single major intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam had VX stockpiles” So just because other intelligence agencies believed Saddam had VX stockpiles it must be true. No where do you think these other spy agencies got their intel? Feet on the ground in Iraq? No, they got it from the great misinformation dissemination machine in DC.
So, back to you, provide the proof that no one else has had access to which demonstrates unconditionally that Saddam had WMD, it’s up to you to back the claims you make as factual. So far all you’ve provided is a lot of hot smelly air. You used school yard deflection “You're not listening; you're just ranting. Your mind is made up and it is quite clear you have only a mild surface-level understanding of foreign policy and warfare. To miss the Polish example is key, since it is clear to all who aren't on some sort of anti-American crusade as you clearly are that I was pointing out that the US has treaty obligations agreed to by the Senate that are binding, and that many of them support our interests. Yet you claim I have weak understanding. That is laughable, since it is clear you have no understanding whatsoever. You're just venting your hatred. I'm done with this topic. I'm obviously casting pearls amongst swines.” And other like statements wherein you avoid any real discourse where your require to provide details.
So to sum it up, you come in here, slander Ron Paul, provide no real argument to any subject you comment on, in other words you’re a good little lap dog for the DC morons.
 Commented 3456 days ago |
